Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Blackstone Condos | 6 fl | U/C
#46
I remember being at the sales launch for this.

Do you guys reckon that development will explode out this way? It’s is the edge of Waterloo as is correct..
Reply


#47
I'm not sure that there is much unspoken for land in that end of town. I doubt that any development will be able to jump beyond on the current City boundary as it has in Breslau. Most of the housing stock inside the City line is less than 30 years old (and probably closer to less than 20 years old). There are probably other spots that could be targeted first.
Reply
#48
There are very small pockets.  You can figure out where some of the new build pockets will be using the Zoning Map HERE.

Kraus Lands will be the largest area of new build for the North East end Waterloo.  There are also some small pockets in Carriage Crossing yet to be developed (or sold to a developer).  Everything else is really zoned for "employment lands".  The City will need to change this zoning if more residential is to be built, but that is doubtful.

Overall, the future of Waterloo is intensification.  Check out the Zoning Changes HERE and you can see it happening more and more for select spots in North Waterloo.  364 Woolwich Street is a good example (although more East).
Reply
#49
(03-17-2021, 07:58 AM)Watdot Wrote: There are very small pockets.  You can figure out where some of the new build pockets will be using the Zoning Map HERE.

Kraus Lands will be the largest area of new build for the North East end Waterloo.  There are also some small pockets in Carriage Crossing yet to be developed (or sold to a developer).  Everything else is really zoned for "employment lands".  The City will need to change this zoning if more residential is to be built, but that is doubtful.

Overall, the future of Waterloo is intensification.  Check out the Zoning Changes HERE and you can see it happening more and more for select spots in North Waterloo.  364 Woolwich Street is a good example (although more East).

“Employment lands” is such a nonsense designation. As if a few zoning people have any clue at all where it makes sense for employment activities to locate.

It makes sense to say “this part of the City is for loud and/or dangerous industrial activities”, and “this part of the City is for people who want to live quietly”; but it makes no sense at all to say “this part of the City is for activities that have lots of employees”.

In particular, planners have no business at all saying that stores and offices should not have apartments above them. In the absence of an actual reason to restrict the freedom of property owners and occupiers to use it how they want, society doesn’t have a right to do so. And “some people might not want to live there” isn’t a valid reason to prevent people from living there.
Reply
#50
(03-17-2021, 11:43 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: “Employment lands” is such a nonsense designation. As if a few zoning people have any clue at all where it makes sense for employment activities to locate.

It makes sense to say “this part of the City is for loud and/or dangerous industrial activities”, and “this part of the City is for people who want to live quietly”; but it makes no sense at all to say “this part of the City is for activities that have lots of employees”.

In particular, planners have no business at all saying that stores and offices should not have apartments above them. In the absence of an actual reason to restrict the freedom of property owners and occupiers to use it how they want, society doesn’t have a right to do so. And “some people might not want to live there” isn’t a valid reason to prevent people from living there.

The city definition of employment lands is also extremely narrow in non-obvious ways, for example, it excludes office buildings.
Reply
#51
(03-17-2021, 12:05 PM)taylortbb Wrote:
(03-17-2021, 11:43 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: “Employment lands” is such a nonsense designation. As if a few zoning people have any clue at all where it makes sense for employment activities to locate.

It makes sense to say “this part of the City is for loud and/or dangerous industrial activities”, and “this part of the City is for people who want to live quietly”; but it makes no sense at all to say “this part of the City is for activities that have lots of employees”.

In particular, planners have no business at all saying that stores and offices should not have apartments above them. In the absence of an actual reason to restrict the freedom of property owners and occupiers to use it how they want, society doesn’t have a right to do so. And “some people might not want to live there” isn’t a valid reason to prevent people from living there.

The city definition of employment lands is also extremely narrow in non-obvious ways, for example, it excludes office buildings.
10.3 EMPLOYMENT LAND USE POLICIES
The City will plan for employment areas that provide a broad range of employment opportunities to meet the needs of the City’s employees, businesses and residents. The City will also plan for transit and pedestrian- supportive employment areas, wherever possible, while recognizing that traditional employment areas are currently automobile- oriented.
Waterloo’s employment growth will be characterized by knowledge based, technology and office uses, with a particular focus on research and technology firms, finance, insurance and real estate, as well as academic institutions. Manufacturing will also remain important to the economy in providing support to research and technology firms while producing goods for the broader economy. Other service industries that primarily support Waterloo’s population will continue to provide their important function for residents.
The Employment land use designations permit a broad range of employment uses. Complementary uses, where permitted, are anticipated to directly support the primary employment use on the lands and adjacent area. Ancillary uses, where permitted, are anticipated to provide opportunities for mixed-use developments within specific Employment land use designations, and are intended to permit uses that directly support the primary employment use on the lands and adjacent area.
Development within employment areas will be guided by Site and Urban Design and Land Use Compatibility policies found within this chapter. Further, development within employment areas will be consistent with the City’s urban design objectives and policies as set out in this Plan and supporting implementation documents, such as the Urban Design Manual, will be used during the review of development applications to achieve a high standard of urban design.
Reply
#52
I think using the term "Employment Lands" allows for the City to look ahead on the horizon to plan for future employment uses. In particular, it is useful if they see a current land use that is "employment land' proposed to become "non-employment land". The City has to be a mix of both for a healthy City. For instance, the Seagram Lofts are no longer employment land though there are a handful of live-work units on site. If someone were to propose a new Seagram-sized distillery, they would be hard pressed to find a spot in the City. Manufacturing is also a challenge, particularly since there are some high-tech manufacturing processes that don't mix well with other land or building uses (consider additive manufacturing aka 3D printing).
Reply


#53
(03-20-2021, 12:27 AM)nms Wrote: I think using the term "Employment Lands" allows for the City to look ahead on the horizon to plan for future employment uses.  In particular, it is useful if they see a current land use that is "employment land' proposed to become "non-employment land".  The City has to be a mix of both for a healthy City.  For instance, the Seagram Lofts are no longer employment land though there are a handful of live-work units on site. If someone were to propose a new Seagram-sized distillery, they would be hard pressed to find a spot in the City. Manufacturing is also a challenge, particularly since there are some high-tech manufacturing processes that don't mix well with other land or building uses (consider additive manufacturing aka 3D printing).

I’m confused by what you say about additive manufacturing. How is it incompatible with other uses? As far as I can see you can put a 3D printer in a corner of an office; or move the desk workers out and have a whole row of printers; or convert an entire office building into a factory. It’s not like a steel mill or something which produces lots of noise and pollution that isn’t appropriate in a residential neighbourhood.
Reply
#54
Depending on the material used, there can be ventilation requirements. I haven't the faintest idea to what scale, though.
Reply
#55
(03-20-2021, 10:02 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: I’m confused by what you say about additive manufacturing. How is it incompatible with other uses?

The main issue I'm aware of is specifically 3d metal printing. It uses extremely fine metal dust which creates a substantial risk of nasty metal fires, requiring special construction considerations to mitigate. I believe the classification of the process would be enough to prohibit any attached residential use. Still a pretty niche use case, and I don't think anything more than perhaps some extended setbacks would be needed for adjacent properties.

The big high-tech use case I wouldn't want to live too close too is semiconductor manufacturing, since it uses a lot or REALLY nasty chemicals, many of which are gaseous. e.g. phosphine, silane, hydrogen flouride, various germanium and arsenic compounds. If something goes wrong there I wouldn't want to be anywhere downwind.
Reply
#56
(03-20-2021, 01:20 PM)megabytephreak Wrote:
(03-20-2021, 10:02 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: I’m confused by what you say about additive manufacturing. How is it incompatible with other uses?

The main issue I'm aware of is specifically 3d metal printing. It uses extremely fine metal dust which creates a substantial risk of nasty metal fires, requiring special construction considerations to mitigate. I believe the classification of the process would be enough to prohibit any attached residential use. Still a pretty niche use case, and I don't think anything more than perhaps some extended setbacks would be needed for adjacent properties.

The big high-tech use case I wouldn't want to live too close too is semiconductor manufacturing, since it uses a lot or REALLY nasty chemicals, many of which are gaseous. e.g. phosphine, silane, hydrogen flouride, various germanium and arsenic compounds. If something goes wrong there I wouldn't want to be anywhere downwind.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Those sorts of concerns are exactly the kind of thing that could legitimately not only restrict the manufacturing process to specific areas, but go beyond that to actually forbid living in that area. Another example is fuel transfer facilities, which blow up every so often (although I understand progress is being made in this area too).
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links